@@davidclark573 God is a tool of fiction. If She existed, then we would have no demand for theologians. Men have always known God is fiction. The Temple of God serves the best meat, & if Gods existed, She would have no need of men for teachers. Thanks for the reply. How is it possibly ethical to suggest the equivalent of a notion we all travel with one foot in a stranger's fantasyland, using fictional vocabulary: prophecy, prayer, etc. We have Moses: World's worst navigator leading a party as if travel were best done with one foot in fiction. If Christianity were so good, why are the Jews unconvinced? The religious lack any standing for a vacuum of quality-control. The Jews have a joke: God made Mormons so Christians would know how Jews feel. As the crowds increased, Jesus said, "This is a wicked generation. It asks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah, who was sacrificed overboard & the raging sea grew calm." The sign of Jonah is the superstitious working their way to a majority & good people dying. Need we add more? Should we ignore it was secular law & order ending the inquisitions, the witch killing? Nothing fails like prayers in a children's hospital. We don't recommend prophet as job description. We know them by their works & Christians have attempted to put their new wine in the old Jew wineskin. They both come from genital mutilation spun up with circumcision as a shortcoming. We know them by their works, the vocabulary of fiction, of spin.
What are you talking about? The host didn't catch any of Meyer's BS arguments, fallacies, or highly biased, flawed garbage (see below). This is exactly what happens when hosts are so dishonest/pandering or uneducated/ignorant about a subject they confuse a PhD degree in philosophy with a PhD in science, which actually studies the external universe, not the human mind. 3:20 "[science says] the universe had a beginning". No it doesn't. The big bang says there was an expansion event; what was "before" that is totally unknown, because there is no empirical data. But, if each one of the millions of past unknowns that science has resolved is any clue, this latest gap is most likely explained by more blind, mindless, purposeless natural/chemical/physical processes, not the biblical wet-dream that creationists conjure from the depths of their philosophical rectums. Meyer gives the usual invalid religious argument that proposes, purely based on faith, a god of gaps to fill in the "before", as well as confusing a _knowledge boundary_ with a _natural boundary,_ beyond which is the "supernatural". How that works is totally unknown, unobserved, of the human mind and based totally on faith. The host didn't notice, much less question any of Meyer's numerous basic logical fallacies (god of gaps, argument from ignorance, etc.), never mind false claims about science and science history. "transcendent creator [i.e. mind without a brain]" Science says all minds have [naturally-grown, naturally-operated, physical, chemical, material] brains, with no exceptions. The only way you can say science supports theism is to ignore vast amounts of empirical evidence.
@@robertdouglas8895 You mean science and natural processes, the things creationists hate so much because nature doesn't work like them; conscious, intelligent and purposeful (much like racists hate people not like them). But everyone needs to rely on nature daily to keep our roofs from collapsing, killing us, our computers, cars, bodies and minds working, as well as everyone we care about, alive. This is because science has the only verifiable, reliable, knowledge about the universe we know exists, allows your existence, and creates all that we see. Creationism has no demonstrated reliable "field" or basis. It's conjured from the depths of men's fallible, sinful, evil, racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynistic, masochistic, philosophical rectum, which produces equally contradictory and totally unreliable ideas, gods, and religions, as proven by history. Creationists have no field to play on that has any effect other than a drug of the mind (created by a physical brain and blind, mindless chemical/physical processes); to make you feel good that those natural processes they despise so much aren't the only thing out there.
I was having a clear out and came across an old DVD from the 1990s called Intelligent Design, which I watched again the other night with much pleasure. Dr Stephen Meyer was on there and then this video came up on my UA-cam feed. How amazing ! Thank you for doing this video. I have long felt that Intelligent Design is worth considering and should be talked about much more widely.
Excellent interview.I connect with Dr.Meyers thought process and explanations so easily.This kind of knowledge and thought always expands and stimulates the mind.
We are on the earth but not of the earth. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." The temporary world is of the mind but it's the carnal mind not the Christ mind.
Dr. Meyer embodies this passage: "Walk in wisdom toward outsiders, making the best use of the time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person." Colossians 4:5-7
When I first ran across Dr. Meyer et al (2003 vid Unlocking the Mysteries of Life... $1.99 to rent) for at least a decade I had no idea he was a theist. His detailed arguments surrounding the cell and the design inference stood on their own. He and other scientists did admit that such evidence would have "metaphysical implications" but he never 'preached' along those lines.
"His detailed arguments surrounding the cell and the design inference stood on their own. " Only within a tiny clique of religious extremists, sheep and idiots. Not one "argument" has been published or cited in any scientific paper, because they have no scientific content. He writes for a conservative extremist propaganda think-tank, the DI, that was founded by a lawyer and is funded by Christian extremists. Look up the "wedge strategy". *ID is a circular fallacy.* It says "X requires a mind", where X is complexity, fine-tuning, codes, information, etc., but fails to ask or acknowledge any of the science on where minds come from: natural, chemical, physical, unintelligent, unconscious, biological growth processes that need the parts ID says requires a mind. See embryology and growth/development sciences to see how blind, mindless processes created you. See neuroscience, physiology and biology for how the same allow you to think, feel and operate. "I had no idea he was a theist." Then you're a smooth-brain.
Out of the fall precipitated from Adams free-will choice, "Cursed is the ground for your sake". God is the potter, we are the pots and life is much more than this short time given to each of us.
My take on Jordan Peterson is: Q. Do you believe in God? JP. That depends on what you mean by "do" and "you" and "believe" and "in" and "God"! He really shows the 'value' of philosophy!
I've listened to Dr Meyer quite a lot now off and on over the years, I can assure you, this interview is one of his best. I strongly urge everyone to download this episode for safekeeping, I predict UA-cam and the internet will not have as much spiritual and deep thinking content in the future.
Dr. Meyer is a class act. Excellent presentation. Our very existence as a sentient being finely tuned within a finely tuned universe, ipse, leaves no other logical conclusion than a infinitely brilliant creator or originator which is beyond our finite imagination.
Stop sniffing your own and other philosophers' farts and go look up 'The Game of Life,' a simulation that practically proves that complexity and factories of molecules can arise out of a handful of simple rules that are naturalistic (self-evident). The things it produces look exactly like biological processes that happen in cells, and nobody 'designed' it. Did God create the AI like ChatGPT that can understand things by merely taking in images and assigning weights to trillions of parameters? No, and furthermore, if AI becomes better than us in every way, even in innovation and art, and capable of creating ecosystems far more stable than Earth's, we will have proven that something better than us is capable of being made by us, thus disproving your deduction.
I thought for the most part Dr Meyers's arguments were very well reasoned (although I don't agree with them), but if there were no other logical explanation for an intelligent person but to believe in an intelligent designer, we wouldn't be discussing it now, and I note that Dr Meyer himself does NOT make that claim.
@@RecliningFurniture I believe the sun will rise tomorrow because it has risen every day of my life, my observation compels me to believe that. Every day of my life I have observed purposefully ordered information always emanates from a mind, the code within all living things is way beyond human capabilities and compels me to believe in an intelligent creator. God solves all chicken and egg problems like which came first DNA or proteins, science cannot answer these questions but God creating all life fully formed with the abilities to replicate and environmentally adapt do, evolution requires a suspension of common sense observation that information always comes from an intelligent mind.
The answer to the question of the problem of evil: This is not a problem for those who believe that there is free will in this life and that life is a test.
I disagree. This is a point Dr Meyer makes and clearly believes. I don't happen to think he's right, but just parroting the point without further illumination doesn't seem to me to serve any useful purpose.
@@RecliningFurniture On what ground you disagree? Saying that someone is parroting something without giving the argument and specifics for your claim, proves the exact opposite - your parroting what you were fed up through indoctrination camps, so called "education".
@@MultiSky7 Well my point had nothing to do with my disagreement with Dr Meyer, it was to do with just repeating what he said about information without further insight as though that was helpful to anyone reading the board comments. However, I have actually learned this little trick of thinking for myself, so I can appraise the strength of arguments that I've never heard before, which includes Dr Meyer's argument here. Information is not just things like computer code which trace back to intelligent origin. Information is how we interpret any phenomenon presented to us. One example of information is me saying to you 'the Earth goes round the Sun'. All the things we think we know about anything can be described as information of some sort, and some of these things will be true (eg 'The Earth goes round the Sun' ) whether we are aware of them and their truth or not. It's not the presence of information that bears any significance, it's the ability to interpret information in a meaningful way. If there was no intelligence that existed - including God - that was capable of interpreting information about the universe, that doesn't mean that the universe wouldn't exist, it would simply mean that the universe wouldn't exist in a meaningful way. (Conversely, if there were no intelligent beings that existed in the Universe, but a transcendent God existed who had created the universe, all the information about the universe would have meaning - to God.) We can't establish the existence of God just by saying the universe 'naturally' contains information, we have to demonstrate that the information has a particular meaning that can only correlate with the existence of God. In my view, that's impossible, because all the information we are capable of processing is of a limited physical type or dimension of some kind, and God - if He exists - is necessarily transcendent and formless and can't be meaningfully associated with any properties or information that we are capable of measuring or understanding.
@@davidbell2547 I'm excited. I've never heard of an actual test for the mind of a transcendental being before. What is the test - I'd love to know (and the world needs to know)?
I grew up in a strong Christian household. But my strength of a Creator became stronger later in life because of science. Not 1 person can say 100% there is no Creator and not 1 person can say 100% there is a Creator. But if you take in account all we know and see, it's more likely that we were Created.
The problem of pain is an interesting question, BUT ATHEISTS DONT OFFER A HELPFUL ANSWER. The upshot of the atheist argument is that WE STILL SUFFER, but atheists tell us we just have to live with it. We suffer just as much, but atheists get to feel SMUG about it. But the doctrine of Christs atonement and resurrection and restoration, promiises to redeem us and allows us to overcome all the suffering of the natural world. Christ is God who has experienced ALL the suffering of humanity. Gods answer to the question of suffering is Look on my hands, feet and side pierced as I suffered with you. I know infinitely more about suffering than you, Stephen Fry. And I offer the only way to overcome the pain of life. You atheists offer no help.
Anyone that still believes that the universe is "finely tuned for life" (or anything else for that matter) is undermining their own credibility. It's the classic Anthropic Principle. Douglas Adam's put the equivalent argument from a puddle's perspective. For those that don't know the analogy, he said "“If you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!". That is effectively what the "finely tuned for life" argument is. It is self-evidently quite obvious that the very fact that things exist within the universe shows that the universe is one that those things can exist in. To flip this round and think that the universe has specifically been created to support human life is not only flawed but is also self-centred arrogant conceit of the highest order.
That is not the argument though. It is not looking around and saying wow this universe fits me so nicely. It is looking at the calculations and saying we should not exist but do. What do we conclude from that? It is like being put up against a firing range having them all fire and ending up with an outline of bullet holes in the shape of your body but not one piercing you (this is still more likely than the universe existing in a life producing state). You can conclude on the anthropic principle I needed to exist to observe this, that was lucky, or there was some meddling about.
@@android4754 Given that we actually do exist, on what basis are you arguing that "the calculations" say that "we should not exist"? That's clearly wrong. You are putting yourself into the position of the puddle admiring the finely-tuned shape of the hole that it is in.....rather than looking at the hole and thinking about what is possible within it.
We are on the earth but not of the earth. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." The temporary world is of the mind but it's the carnal mind not the Christ mind.
An entertaining and easy-to-understand conversation about the Genesis creation and evolution debate is the stage play Axis of Beginning. A quote from it says, “Intelligent design is based on the concept that DNA functions as a language, similar to arranging letters, images, or symbols to communicate information in precise ways. Comparable to computer codes, Morse codes, bar codes, tax codes, building codes, fire codes, zip codes, texts sent on our phones, or notes on small pieces of scrap paper left on the refrigerator to remind us to pick up the dry cleaning on our way home. No form of communication, sign language, spoken or written, can randomly change its characters within the sequence and continue to communicate meaningful information, like many essential thoughts working to form one great idea. God engineered every detail of creation, inventing the language of mathematics before He spoke."
I have written a book called the "Nation's Identiry Delusion" in my local language Amharic language in Ethiopia. My argument is "Nation collective Identity" doesn't exist. But Economical Standard of Living does with an individual bilogical identity in space and time does exist. Culture doesn't exist too.
The question of evil has a very simple answer when understood, we are in school here, one method of education is what we call karma or, what you sow you shall also reap, in that sense, we ourselves create so-called evil, which we then experience in order to refine our awareness-consciousness, there is a big picture here which does result in communion with God after sufficient education.
I was religious and atheist and I claim I have discovered the nature of God, and atheists have explained to me what is atheism, because I don't know yet, almost infinite times. Which means atheists have defended an idea without any arguments deceiving their innocent and vulnerable children always. I am a poet that writes prose to be understood better, all my work is poetry. Humanity are living a lie for obvious reasons for anyone interested in the truth. Would you understand and tell your innocent and vulnerable children what I said to you? Why? They would understand an injustice is being committed. The greatest knowledge of all time is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist.
This might be the weirdest and star-struck fan-boy interview I've ever seen. Meyer gets obliterated when challenged within the actual scientific community.
So rock formations that look like something (ie, NH's Old Man of the Mountain) but were "carved" by natural processes over many, many years don't count.
All one needs to do is undertake a closer examination. From the opposite side it didn’t look anything like design. There is absolutely no comparison to the obvious design of Mt. Rushmore or biological protein creation.
@@Crashawsome the fact I stated I found it fascinating is enough for it to be true. It's an opinion that I can hold regardless of your opinion. Weird phrasing or not it's still true so you may not want to jump to conclusions in future. Not everyone is like you and can't listen to anyone's opinions that don't align with your beliefs.
I haven't seen the Stephen Fry clip but it sounds to me a repeat of what David Attenborough said some time ago. And... to be honest, was repeatedly parroted by yours truly back in my atheist days. So in other words, for many, this has become a conclusive statement to a discussion that hasn't even begun yet.
11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility. 12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.
Christopher Hitchens said the best evidence for A Creator is the fine tuning of the universe. I don't know the exact numbers but they are somewhere in the 10 to the power of 80.
@@matthewstokes1608 fine-tuning that must go into some of these values to yield a life-friendly universe: Gravitational constant: 1 part in 10^34 Electromagnetic force versus force of gravity: 1 part in 10^37 Cosmological constant: 1 part in 10^120 Mass density of universe: 1 part in 10^59 Expansion rate of universe: 1 part in 10^55 Initial entropy: 1 part in 10^ (10^123) The last item in the list - the initial entropy of the universe - shows an astounding degree of fine-tuning. What all this shares is an incredible, astronomically precise, purposeful care and planning that went into the crafting of the laws and constants of the universe, gesturing unmistakably to intelligent design. As Nobel laureate in physics Charles
@@matthewstokes1608 I'm no scientist at all. I can read and comprehend though. This type of numbers cannot just be random process. This is a bomb for Evolution Theory and more logic and reason for the Intelligent Designer. I call Him God.
@@richardpurser2935 i could short cut the science and hot air by affirming that there is a God because I am a Christian and I have proof of His grace and Presence every single day. Ask a human scientist anywhere - without any seed - to make just one living crocus. Ask a great poet and you will have a thing - a song of beauty in reverence to the Creator of the inimitable. We need more artists and poets and dancers and lovers - and more ridicule of these boring, unimaginative, satanic “scientists”. They may think men such as me as “ignorant” - but that is nothing as to what I think of them.
@@richardpurser2935 No, no, no and a hundred times no. The "finely tuned" argument is completely the wrong way about. It comes up time and time again and I do find it bizarre that otherwise intelligent people like Dr Meyer also like it, but it's fallacious. Douglas Adams made the analogy of a puddle thinking that the hole it sat in was such a perfect fit for it that it the only logical explanation must be that the hole was specifically designed and "finely tuned" for it to fit into. Look up the Anthropic Principle.
Before you ask this question first, you need to define what God is and then proceed, but aside from that I must say that Stephan Mayer is an extremely intelligent man that is true to himself in expressing the study of the origin of life telling things as it is. Hopefully one day he’ll get engaged in the ancient mystical study of Kabbalah which is much deeper then any physical scientific study, he’ll find out even more on deeper depth. But yes I consider him as the Isaac Newton of our time. And as regarding to your question about human suffering and evil in the world, I would say you need to invite someone like Tuvia singer or Simon Jacobson to answer these deep theological theosophical question, because with all the respect to Stephan Meyer, I do not agree with him on his answer regarding the New Testament, as it’s not considered to be the word of God, but rather a more dualistic approach that was merged with the Greek misinterpretation of the Hebrew Bible, which is considered to be the word of God. But aside from that as always, it’s great to listen to someone like Stephan Meyer.
The concept of the universe being fined tuned is absolutely false and turning the methodology backwards. Let me illustrate. If a teacher drew a Cartesian coordinate on the board and added some points to it then asks students to derive the mathematical formula that will fit all the points, then the students will arrive at a function that would do that. Now supposedly, we now ask the students to alter any one of the coefficients, then the function will no longer pass through the points. Was the coefficient then fine tuned? No, the coefficients were derived from the data and converted into an equation. The equation now models the data perfectly because it was derived from the data. Could a universe have existed with different sets of coefficients? We don't know since we only have one universe to work with. So, fine tuning happens with the functions we created to model the universe and not the universe having been fine tuned to fit our equations.
Great informative article. Richard Dawkins is God's secret Agent, more effective than a thousand sermons, opens his mouth, and millions rush home with renewed interest into their Holy Bibles
I’m sorry that time in this interview was taken to discuss Jordan Peterson’s beliefs, etc. While Peterson’s journey has been quite interesting, and he has helped many people along the way, he is also a human with personal and psychological issues, whose opinion about religion, the Bible, etc., should really not be a part of this discussion. Just my opinion.
When I see Dr Peterson grappling with his religious beliefs, it is clear that he recognises the conflict between the rationality in almost everything he says and the irrationality of having religious beliefs. I've seen him attempt to rationalise the conflict by claiming that rational thought is somehow subordinate to some other form of thought and it's that other form of thought that he places the religious belief. Clearly this is just special pleading on his part but at least he is conscious of having to resolve the conflict. He will only be able to resolve the conflict when/if he drops the irrational religious beliefs. He quite possible won't drop his religious beliefs as I know that very hard for some people to do. Let's face it, religion has been around a long time and survives to this day even though our scientific understanding of the universe has solved the overwhelming majority of unknowns that "God did it" was the explanation for centuries ago.
@@davegaskell7680 Perhaps the issue of ‘intelligent design’, where Dr. Meyer argues that the exact mathematical nature of the universe could not be random, is an entirely different issue with respect to our religious beliefs….??
@@Inisfad The problem with Dr Meyer's argument in the context of the 'mathematics' of the universe is that it's basically just the "finely tuned" argument which is looking at things from the wrong end. It's quite clear that the mathematics of the universe isn't "random". The ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter of a circle, any circle, is pi and will be pi for every circle regardless of where you are. That's what makes a circle a circle. If a shape had a circumference that wasn't exactly 3.1415926.......times the length of its diameter then it wouldn't be a circle. For something to be a circle, the ratio needs to be exactly 3.1415926..... and the level of precision of this ratio number is incredible as it is an infinitely long number. Surely, for the ratio to be so precise then that's absolutely compelling evidence that the value of pi was incredibly "finely tuned" for circles to exist. Proof of God!! Of course I have my tongue in my cheek there but the logic of the "pi is finely tuned for circles" argument is the same as the "universe is finely tuned for life" argument. Pi is what it is - circles wouldn't be here if it wasn't that number. The universal constants are what they are - humans wouldn't be here if they weren't those numbers.
@@davegaskell7680 I’ve never heard Meyer using the example of pi to indicate intelligent design, but rather the coding of DNA, the mathematics of gravity that allows the universe to continue to expand. I can’t get my head around the genetic code being just randomly by accident…..???
@@Inisfad Well of course Meyer won't use the pi example because doing so would illustrate why his thinking is flawed. Pi is a variant of the "finely tuned" fallacious argument. The "mathematics of gravity" is another variant. The maths is just what it happens to be. If it was different then it would be a different universe. It's that straightforward. It's absolutely nothing to be impressed/surprised about when you look at it from this perspective. The DNA coding is a different point. It's evolution that explains the complexity of DNA and we know vast amounts about how evolution works and how the chemistry of DNA works too. It's only the mutations that are random. Evolution is "descent with modification acted upon by natural selection". The only random part of the process is the modifications (caused by DNA mutations). The descent part and the natural selection parts are absolutely not random.
I cant keep track of the number of scientist quoted by meyer,,, dawkins, hoyle,,, blah,, blah. Strickingly, no one mentions creationist when discussion evolution.
People that have never touched a Bible and have never bothered to try to understand God, do have strong opinions of Him, evil and the the world, and pretend to "know the truth". They judge things that only make sense looking from God's perspective and truth. The Bible clearly states that everything that God created was good, and that the entire world is cursed because of the sin (very long story short, separated from the Source of life and wellness). Also I noticed nobody wants to talk about the devil, like he doesn't exist, and truth is you have no real answers if you take the devil and the sin out of the equation.
To bad that to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt, you need a mechanism, there is no such thing as a mechanism for intelligent design . ua-cam.com/video/DlDAUsO6AVk/v-deo.html&si=DU7iVcjRDK2doy-6
Agree. Ticked me off how rude Joe Rogan was. He would attack/question something. Meyer would answer and point out the flaw in his reasoning or presuppositions, and THEN Joe Rogan would switch to different line of questioning without acknowledging that his scepticism was debunked. Meyer was too nice in my opinion.
Eh I would not be too upset. He has his presuppositions and personal interests and pet theories. None of those are not easily changed. Stephen has said in some other places that Joe told him afterward he thought the idea was very interesting and I think Joe is slowly starting to come around.
The man who founded the BB theory was a Belgian priest studying astrophysics. He admitted he was trying to reconcile his faith with astrophysics. In any case, the theory is a terrible one in the sense it’s been patched up with made up entities- dark matter, dark energy, and now that more data pours in, as it has for decades, the theory has again shown to be inconsistent with the “theory” So the scramble is on to rescue the theory with variable time. Variable speed of light, whatever ad hoc explanation and new imagined variables are needed to keep the fairytale alive. There has never been a more absurd theory or so much energy spent clinging to a theory that has more holes than a sieve
Georges Lemaitre DID NOT "admit he was trying to reconcile his faith with his primitive atom theory". To the contrary, he kept his faith and science strictly apart. He even went to the Vatican to try and convince Pope Pius XII to not use his cosmological model as evidence for the biblical creation story. At least you could get the history right instead of throwing out misrepresentations and falsehoods.
We have no concept of how much God is powerfully restraining evil in this world at this very time. Don't you dare accuse God of being mean and rotten. He gives you the very breath you inhale and your next heartbeat which you, Steven Frye, are ungrateful for and undeserving of.
Review of Stephen Meyer's ludicrous *Signature in the Cell* 'Meyer's book is yet another in a long line of 'Intelligent Design' propaganda pieces. Intelligent design is not even an hypothesis, much less a scientific theory. I realize that the Discovery Institute has resources and money to get these books published, but after reading this I ask myself: Why do they bother? They don't have any science to offer. Meyer suggests that intricacies of cells and of DNA could not possibly have evolved without an "intelligent designer," which everyone knows by now is just a code word for 'God.' The utter dishonesty of not just coming right out and saying: 'God did it' (which ultimately is their REAL argument) gives an idea of how much Meyer and his ilk can be trusted. ID is not science, no matter how you try to argue it, Meyer. Evolution by natural selection on the other hand explains the evolution of the cell, and all subsequent life beautifully - no deity necessary. If you want to read some books discussing the real science of evolution, check out Richard Dawkins' 'The Greatest Show on Earth' Donald Prothero's 'Evolution What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters' Jerry Coyne's 'Why Evolution is True' and Neil Shubin's 'Your Inner Fish A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body'. Meyer's book is still potentially useful though. For instance, if you have a table with one leg that's too short, you could even it out by putting 'Signature in the Cell' under the short leg. Problem solved, and the Discovery Institute will finally have done something useful for humanity.'
@@DocReasonableA review of Dawkins *The Greatest Show On Earth* Fascinating scientific discoveries and facts; filled to the brim with horrifyingly fallacious arguments. His hatred of people with differing points of view than him (especially creationists) was not only distracting, but led him to apply the worst logic I've ever heard anyone try to apply in a serious way: ad hominem, straw man, anecdotal, masked man, circular reasoning, equivocation, and pretty much every other fallacy you can think of. The field of evolutionary biology is diverse and filled with a vast number of differing points of view and Dawkins presented the evidence as if there was a single theory of evolution: his. Everyone who disagrees is not only wrong and stupid, but demented and wicked to the core (he really says this--countless times). He did a disservice to the field and to the thousands of evolutionary biologists doing real work collecting and analyzing data, compiling research, testing new and old theories. As a curious and eager to learn listener, I was not just disappointed, but angered by such a poor showing of logic, lack of objective scientific presentation, and just generally narrow view of the field. I expected better of him since he's so well known as an intellectual, but I cannot take him seriously after this book. So much for the spirit of science... If you want an honest scientific presentation of contemporary evolutionary theories, this book is not for you. If you want to rage against creationists and pretend Dawkins has finally come up with the one and only true and indisputable theory of evolution, have fun...
I would like to start by saying that I'm a big fan of Stephen and his work but I would also like to say that his confirmation bias lies in theism, as noted by his prolific use of the word. None of this information affirms a particular theology, it does however, affirm deism. ♾❤
Your comment affirms you can't recognize basic logical fallacies. *ID is a circular argument.* It says "X requires a mind", where X is complexity, fine-tuning, codes, information, etc., but fails to ask or acknowledge any of the science on where minds come from: natural, chemical, physical, unintelligent, unconscious, biological growth processes that need the parts ID says requires a mind. See embryology and growth/development sciences to see how blind, mindless processes created you. See neuroscience, physiology and biology for how the same allow you to think, feel and operate.
I'm still waiting for Meyer's "scientific evidence" for his god. What's his hypothesis - which prediction exactly does it make - how did he test it - where are his test results and do they substantiate the hypothesis? He can doubt whatever scientific/naturalistic explanation he wants, however, that doesn't refute them or make them obsolete. And most importantly, that does in no way advance the probability of his god claim.
Intellectually lazy. His book clearly lays out the current “proofs” of the existence of God. They are irrefutable. If you really care about your question, buy it, read it. It’s astonishing.
@@bradsmith9189 You really have no concept of what constitutes scientific evidence and the scientific method, eh? But since you are adament about it, why don't you provide me with Meyer's best argument or evidence for the existence of god. I don't need the whole book, just his best one, the one that according to you is irrefutable.
Review of Stephen Meyer's ludicrous *Signature in the Cell* 'Meyer's book is yet another in a long line of 'Intelligent Design' propaganda pieces. Intelligent design is not even an hypothesis, much less a scientific theory. I realize that the Discovery Institute has resources and money to get these books published, but after reading this I ask myself: Why do they bother? They don't have any science to offer. Meyer suggests that intricacies of cells and of DNA could not possibly have evolved without an "intelligent designer," which everyone knows by now is just a code word for 'God.' The utter dishonesty of not just coming right out and saying: 'God did it' (which ultimately is their REAL argument) gives an idea of how much Meyer and his ilk can be trusted. ID is not science, no matter how you try to argue it, Meyer. Evolution by natural selection on the other hand explains the evolution of the cell, and all subsequent life beautifully - no deity necessary. If you want to read some books discussing the real science of evolution, check out Richard Dawkins' 'The Greatest Show on Earth' Donald Prothero's 'Evolution What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters' Jerry Coyne's 'Why Evolution is True' and Neil Shubin's 'Your Inner Fish A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body'. Meyer's book is still potentially useful though. For instance, if you have a table with one leg that's too short, you could even it out by putting 'Signature in the Cell' under the short leg. Problem solved, and the Discovery Institute will finally have done something useful for humanity.' @@bradsmith9189
sounds to me like he's substituting maybes for knowledge. why can't we just say 'we don't know' and move on trying to find out more about this reality we live in? i am not sure if the answer will ever be found, and this suits me just fine. my problem isn't with the idea of intelligent design, my problem is with the consequences - evil people using this controversial creator to inflict harm on the lambs who can't see they are being played into horrible deeds.
Another annoyingly clichéd defense of god, and one without much imagination. On the question of free will, for example, why would human beings be rendered mere puppets or machines (47:45) just because SOME options were taken away from us? We already have that in spades now! Examples: My conscience makes it impossible for me to choose cold blooded murder. Am I therefor a puppet? God allegedly has taken away our ability to chose to fly like a bird through the trees, to choose joy and happiness when being slowly tortured to death; to choose going back in time, or to the future, or walking on water. So if He added one more of thousands of categories of choice to this list: that of worst case suffering, why would we be anymore machine like than we already are? And since presumably there's free will in heaven, how is it the He could allow that to be compatible with the absence of evil there, but not here? We need deeper thinkers to contemplate these issues.
Not scientific proof at all. Intelligent design argument does not help. God also needs a designer. You are simply replacing a mystery with another mystery. This is again circular argument.
Tell us Stephen, did you also use the Watchmakers analogy when you came up with Intelligent Design? And why not mention its history or similarity? Hmmmmmmm fishy 🐟
"GOD" He is the creator of all things that do exist and the author of all life in time unknown! He is beyond and before the things that do exist, because he is Truly the beginning and the ending the root, over creation, theologians, scientist and humanity...God's love presides over all... Peace Out!!!!
I would argue that the North Pole is the starting point not a no-starting point and an ending point. Just like God - the beginning and the end. This could also be argued that it is infinite, just as God is. Ever wonder why almost everything in the universe is either round or rotates around something?
Great interview. The Bible has answers for everything. God is not the one causing suffering, satan and his demons are and corrupt humans of curse, Apocalypse 12:12; 1 john 5: 19;Romans 16:20. God does not make anybody suffers James 1:13. God will restore the earth,Apocalypse 11:18, Psalm 37: 10,11, 29; apocalypse 22:3,4, 5. Everybody pray for Gods kingdom to come, but what they don’t realize is that God’s kingdom is very near. We are living the last days of humans corrupt governments. He will put an end to it. Pay attention to one of the last prophecies that will happen, very soon governments are going to end with religion organizations. All FALSE religions are going to vanish , that will happen right before what the Bible called, The great tribulation. The Bible also says, THEY WILL KNOW I AM GOD, Ezekiel 38:23. Every one will know !
If the universe contains its designer, is that designer a material object? If that designer is a material object, he, she, or it must be in a physical place. Does that suggest that another designer designed that place and designer in it? I worry that you may get a vicious infinite regress by assuming that the universe's designer is a material object.
You can't create energy/matter out of pure nothingness so the building blocks of the universe must have always existed. The universe has no creator because the universe itself is eternal.
@@suegirouard917 Do you believe the universe existed before the Big Bang? I've always thought it produced space-time and that the universe includes it. Strictly, the universe can't be eternal because an eternal thing is timeless, unchanging, and unchangeable. But it needs a cause since it, the universe, can change. For example, it can age. So it's older than it was 10 minutes ago. What do you mean by "eternal?" Strictly, an eternal object is timeless, unchanging, and unchangeable. But the universe changes. Do you mean that though the universe began to exist, it'll exist forever? Each thing we know of that begins to exist has a cause. Tell me, my friend, did the Big Bang make the universe start to exist or did it merely fill it with stars, planets, and so forth? If it caused space-time to exist, what was there without space-time and without the Big Bang? Since nothing comes from nothing, I doubt that you'll say the universe came from nothing if the Big Bang produced it. If the Big Bang produced it, there had to be something without the Big Bang, i.e., the universe's possible existence. Suppose the universe has always existed with or without the Big Bang. Then something still must sustain it. Something must make it continue to exist. It can't cause itself to begin to exist since the idea that anything can do that implies a self-contradiction. Why is that. Whenever a cause makes something exist, the cause must be before the effect or exist along with it. But for an object to cause itself to begin to exist, the cause and the effect must be exactly the same. So in that case, the cause must exist and not exist at the same time. Let's say the universe began to exist. Then it needed a cause. It also requires someone or something to sustain it. Sure, natural processes. But what sustains it and those processes? Consider a refrigerator magnet. The magnet attaches it to the refrigerator door. For it to stay there, the magnet must keep working. The stick and the magnetic attraction have to coexist for the magnet to stay on the door. If God makes the universe and its natural processes last, they can't survive without him. If that's true, then if there were no God, there would be nothing at all. We keep hearing about god-of-the-gaps arguments. Dawkins says that theists tell us that God did something when. they can't explain it. On the other hand, if God sustains everything and each part of it, science would be impossible without him. After all, science is something. If there were no God, there would be no fossil record gaps since there would be nothing at all.
@@williammcenaney1331 Energy can neither be created or destroyed so yes, the universe existed before the Big Bang, it just looked very different from what we see today. The universe is eternal, god is just a fictional creature imagined out of ignorance.
You are throwing in all sorts of assertions without any justification for them. You are asking us to accept your personal assumptions as binding on us. It is all in your head. There is no reason the facts of the dozen finely tuned constants can be invalidated because you do not accept the corollaries of those facts.
The very first thing he said is wrong [1]: "the universe comes out of a set of preexisting set of equations". No, the equations were not preexisting, nor is the language of math, and all other languages known by humans. All equations, models, theories, laws, languages, codes and symbols known by humans were created/invented by humans _after_ observing patterns in empirical data (or they were borrowed from some other area of knowledge that is also based in empirical observation). As all things in science, math was refined over many years, with many changes, and have many completely different forms that are unrecognizable as equivalent, except by physicists and mathematicians. Humans created the equations, the mathematical language and symbols of the equations. They were not observed. Nor is the "language" of mathematical physics, or the language of DNA observed. It was created by humans after observing patterns in empirical data that had no language and was only structured in space and time. "the universe is depicted as a consequence of math" Meyer is deeply confused and/or wants to confuse his audience. No honest physicist says the universe is scientifically demonstrated to be a consequence of math or a mind. *The universe is described and predicted by math.* "math is conceptual; it exists in the mind" Which is created by matter, energy, material/natural processes in the brain, which was grown naturally from parts that were no intelligent (neurons) or alive (atoms, electrons, etc.). Minds can't exist without a [naturally-grown] brain, cells, matter and energy., says science. All minds have [naturally-grown/operated] brains, cells and other parts, with no demonstrated or observable exceptions. Meyer then makes a basic logical fallacy and confuses the _origin of math_ with the _origin of the universe._ Not only is this logically bogus, it's empirically bogus because there are many other things described by math but are proven to not be caused by a mind, namely the growth of brains that cause human intelligence (caused by natural/chemical/physical processes in embryology), the creation of weather (caused by chemistry, physics and other natural processes), the origin of the sun and stars (caused by physical processes), etc. [1] And he knows it's wrong because he has a degree in the history of science, and his goal is to confuse his audience; pushing a creationist agenda. I.e. Meyer is a liar, just like James Tour and all the other discovery institute stooges.
@@SarahBaker-q9k Minds made of brains, grown and operated 100% by natural processes, you mean. You owe your entire existence to blind, dumb, mindless, purposeless, material mechanisms that grew your brain creating your mind. Show me a mind without a naturally-grown, naturally-operated brain (that relies on chemical/physical/natural/material parts and processes), and you'll be rich beyond avarice and world-famous. Thus, intelligent design/creationism has *no basis in observable reality.* All minds require material, naturally-grown brains, with no exceptions. DNA/codes/complexity requires a mind, you say? Minds require complex DNA codes to grow brains, science says, thus ID is a circular fallacy. As usual, the theist has nothing of substance to add, because they totally misjudge and underestimate the power of the material universe, at their own peril.
Iv often found the people that throw around the term incel as an insult often are the ones most likely to be one. Pretty petty comment in reply to two people having a conversation 🤣
I hope I can encourage you and build you up in the faith! Woe to them that call Evil good and Good evil Darwinian Evolutionary Religion “Survival of the Fittest” which is associated with “Lawlessness” men behaving badly! If you think that life is an accident, that Mother Nature made everything---chemicals came together and formed living cells billions of years ago in the ocean and these then evolved into all the species we find in the sea and then one day, a fish became an amphibian then reptile, then reptile to bird and mammal all the way up to humans from a common ancestor. This is purely religious in perspective and orientation. Evolutionary vanity is a form of godlessness which will one day all end in tears. Evolution has three major stumbling blocks: no evidence that living matter originated from non-living matter, no irreducible complexity of the single cell, living organisms are made up of trillions of cells-all parts of a living cell have to be present for it to function and lastly, “no transitional forms” either fossilized or living. Paleontologists’ have a continual headache because they have to imagine evolutionary concepts with fossil remains. The bias and prejudice that created the theory of evolution was carried over from its grand architect Charles Darwin, who rejected the idea of God because of its profound implications. He stated and I quote: I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that men who do not believe and this would include my Father, brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished, and that is a damnable doctrine. Evolutionary thinking excuses moronic behaviour, men behaving badly. Darwin called the gospel of Jesus Christ a damnable heresy-the loving words of Jesus in the form of God’s commandments are a damnable doctrine? What did Jesus teach? God is a spirit which you cannot see and you are to love him in prayer with all of your heart, mind, soul and spirit and to love your neighbour as yourself and that includes your enemies. This is flawless doctrine, good and wholesome words of spirit and life, sound doctrine for those who have ears to hear with. Every day we are being watched by a profound power we cannot see which is invisible to the human eye, something beyond our complete understanding! God has come to prove us through his Son Jesus Christ. Woe to them that call good evil. If Charles Darwin called the gospel of Jesus Christ a damnable doctrine, where does that leave the Origin of Species and Preservation of Favoured Races? Woe to them that call evil good! How do I understand and take knowledge of God! Simply by the life of Jesus, who said he who has seen me hath seen the Father, I and the Father are one. The birth of Jesus, yes! We celebrate this event at this time of year, but Jesus was actually conceived in the later part of December for him to be born Sept/ Oct the following year around the Jewish “Feast of Tabernacles.” God is love and every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God, he that loveth not, knoweth not God for God is love.
The Cosmic Big Bang Theory Sir Fred Hoyle an astronomer at Cambridge University in the 1980’s said, I fear a sickly paw now overhangs the “Big Bang Theory.” Evolution teaches there was a Big Bang 18-20 billion years ago! [They keep revising their estimates.] All the matter in the universe was supposedly compressed into a very tiny dote probably no bigger than a period on this page. This matter was spinning faster and faster until it eventually exploded- the Big Bang. The matter that forms our universe should be evenly distributed throughout space but it is not, there is nothing uniform about it, we have areas in space where there are clusters of stars and then areas where there are great voids. We have some galaxies which spin clockwise and some which spin anti-clockwise, this is rather hard on the Big Bang theory, because all the matter should be evenly distributed and spinning in the same direction. The Big Bang is dead! According to the physical laws governing stellar velocities, stars should be travelling faster the nearer they are to the centre of their galaxies. Observational data proves that all stars in the outer parts of their galaxies are in fact travelling faster than those nearer the centre of their galaxies. This evidence is in direct conflict with the Big Bang theory and the prediction of these stellar velocity laws. The Sun and our solar system The sun is supposed to be part of the matter that resulted from the Big Bang 18-20 billion years ago and our planets and moons theoretically evolved from the sun. The sun spins on its own axis slower than the planets that go around it. The planets and moons of our solar system according to cosmic evolutionists were thrown off from the sun by centrifugal force. An experiment with a top will soon show that small particles thrown off it will lose speed much quicker than the top itself. If the Big Bang be scientifically true the sun should be spinning faster than the planets and moons which go around it but this is not the case. Planets and moons rotate in different directions How is it that Uranus and Venus rotate on their axis, in the direction opposite to that of the other six planets? If all eight evolved from the sun, it would be inconceivable that this should be so. How is it that eleven out of the thirty two moons of the planets of our solar system revolve in a direction opposite to that of the revolution of the planets around the sun? The eleven are: four out of Jupiter’s twelve; Phoebe, the outermost of Saturn’s nine moons; the five moons of Uranus; and Triton, the inner of Neptune’s two moons. Why is it that, whereas the sun rotates much slower than its planets, each satellite- owning planet [except the earth] rotates faster than its satellites? All these evidences against The Big-Bang theory are purposely kept out of the public domain for good reasons; by atheists who pull rank in privileged positions of science. The earth has such heavy elements How did the earth come to have such a huge amount of heavy elements? The earth contains iron, nickel, magnesium, gold, copper and silver etc, compared with the sun which is 99% hydrogen and helium? Professor Fred Hoyle said, “Material torn from the sun would not be suitable for the formation of the planets and moons as we know them.”
Stephen's arguments are not any more or less valid because he approaches them as a believer. That would be like saying a defense attorney's arguments are invalid because he believes his client is innocent.
They are less valid because he has zero evidence for his version of daddy. Why do all you men need an invisible man to protect you? It’s all a bit weird
How do you know he doesn't have any evidence for the existence of God? You haven't mentioned anything here to show he doesn't. Could you please give a few examples of what would count as evidence? Your over simplification of who God is shows you really don't understand what Christianity teaches about who God is.
"Mathematical castles in the air" The whole of science is laid out with these mathematical castles. The very foundation of modern science is built with these mathematics.
Yahweh was one of the sons of the Canaanite god El. The ancient polytheistic Hebrews eventually adopted him as their chief deity and later became monotheistic. So, the answer is no.
A theist can not even distinguish fantasy from reality so how is that an intelligent design? You also can not create something out of absolute nothingness just as you can not destroy something that exists down to nothingness. This means the universe is eternal and can not possibly be created. The building blocks of the universe have to be eternal because you can't create something out of nothing.
It is certainly easier to say a god did it than to learn and understand how the universe naturally came to be. You could even lower it to an intelligence did it, not necessarily a godly intelligence. It is clear that an intelligence created a watch but it does nothing to explain how the watch came to be or the details of how it works. It doesn't even indicate a single intelligence created the watch, it could have been more than one. Some information could potentially be derived from the watch about the creator but most of the information will be unknown unless someone spoke to the watchmaker directly. The big problem however is we can walk along a beach and a watch on the beach would stand out as created from what would otherwise be considered natural formations. If we were in a junk yard with plenty of man made junk, the watch would not stand out since we are walking through a collection of intelligently created things. Theists want to make a case for everything being a creation but we already have an understanding of why certain natural formations or events occur that do not have an intelligence involved. There is nothing wrong with both nature and gods eternally existing, meaning just because we can have a natural explanation for everything doesn't necessarily negate any gods from existing. The problem is that right now gods are hidden (if any exist) and theists are looking for a need that only a god could fill. Even if a god actually exists, it is problematic not to have anything that points to that existence and even more problematic to have man made religions telling us the many things these gods want or don't want from humans.
Everything points towards god. Simulation theory and other theories, are just scientists realising they believe in god but wont say it because of pride and stubbornness.
Dr Meyers, honestly, the Bible clearly outlines that these things, the suffering of men and yes children, is a result of sin. Plain and simple. Don't blame God
Where does sin come in as part of the properties of the universe, I must have missed that bit? There's (rather unfortunately given that the rest of Dr Meyer's arguments at least sound cogent) a bit about rebellions of angelic beings - ie creatures completely unknown to science - but that's well outside the scope of the philosophy of science, isn't it?
@@RecliningFurnitureHi Reclining. Written in the program “On the Shoulders of Giants” speculated that consciousness may lie outside of physics FOREVER. I disagree with him, but if he is correct for some reason, then one may speculate that sin is a product of consciousness, and thus would fall outside the purview of physics (al a Witten).
Meyer's evasion of the "evil" question doesn't match his apparent rigour on scientific matters. An obvious double standard that betrays his inner motivation.
Steven Meyer is a nice guy, but I have to say his case for intelligent design is incredibly weak. It simply does not follow that because the Universe had a beginning that therefore it must have been brought into existence by an intelligent personal designer. What reason do we have to think such a thing? There just is no argument to support that claim. I can see why at first it might appear to call out for that type of explanation, but when you analyze it more deeply, I think you'll discover that no creator is required. And it's not like this discovery of an absolute beginning is a new thing or stands as some kind of challenge to atheists. Steven Hawking discovered this decades ago, and his conclusion is the exact opposite of Meyer's! Hawking in fact asserts that this discovery gives us GREATER reason to be atheists than ever before. So I'm sorry, but Meyer just does not have any good reason to give to think that God exists.
ᕙ(☉ਊ☉)ᕗ Natural selection is the character flaw in evil that is integrity is more important than life otherwise evolution is tragic circumstances with nothing intelligent happening. Almost everyone survive untill they reproduce. Nothing is getting selected except for the character flaw in evil. I found a replacement for the character flaw in evil that I liked but God makes me forget things that will cause me trouble.
I'm sorry...but "evidence" for God goes against the tenant of faith..believing in your heart (after weighing the evidence, sure..) and trusting in him. If anyone could 'prove' it, that would make it a thing of man. Just gotta go with it, blindly. Trust and believe. Dr Meyer, I am a scientist too. I've studied many subjects and served as a nuclear electricians mate on an aircraft carrier. My schooling consisted of physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics. I put ALL my faith in science and mans knowledge until i was 31 and met someone who changed my life and how I felt, and I reexamined my life, HUMBLED myself to God, and began to not only believe, but trust. Now I'm more sure of it than the nose on my face. But I'll NEVER be able to prove it to anyone. I can preach, testify, and even be a shining example of a Christian for every breath the Lord allows me to take, but I can never give someone else FAITH. It is not mine to give.
It's true that it's called "faith" not "proof" for a reason, but that doesn't mean you should scoff at really smart people who are adding things up from science and history that reinforce a person's belief. You sound like a fool who is self-righteous with blind faith as if that is somehow more worthy of someone else's belief that isn't afraid to look at all the angles and ask questions.
@@gregkirk1842 There’s no scientific evidence god exists. Stop letting other men take advantage of you. Ask me a couple of questions about the existence of your god - let’s see if you’re afraid
For more conversations like this, and highlights from all our episodes, please consider subscribing to our channel.
In my book Homoexternicus the most important book every written I mention that no one knows what god is.
@@davidclark573 God is a tool of fiction. If She existed, then we would have no demand for theologians.
Men have always known God is fiction. The Temple of God serves the best meat, & if Gods existed, She would have no need of men for teachers. Thanks for the reply.
How is it possibly ethical to suggest the equivalent of a notion we all travel with one foot in a stranger's fantasyland, using fictional vocabulary: prophecy, prayer, etc. We have Moses: World's worst navigator leading a party as if travel were best done with one foot in fiction.
If Christianity were so good, why are the Jews unconvinced?
The religious lack any standing for a vacuum of quality-control. The Jews have a joke: God made Mormons so Christians would know how Jews feel. As the crowds increased, Jesus said, "This is a wicked generation. It asks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah, who was sacrificed overboard & the raging sea grew calm." The sign of Jonah is the superstitious working their way to a majority & good people dying.
Need we add more?
Should we ignore it was secular law & order ending the inquisitions, the witch killing? Nothing fails like prayers in a children's hospital. We don't recommend prophet as job description. We know them by their works & Christians have attempted to put their new wine in the old Jew wineskin. They both come from genital mutilation spun up with circumcision as a shortcoming.
We know them by their works, the vocabulary of fiction, of spin.
What-? Would u like a little pepper on ur word salad??
@@Stupidityindex “Theology is ignorance with wings.”
― Sam Harris
Here is absolute proof God does not exist. If God was the creator he would have made the OCEANS FRESH WATER. NOT SALT WATER !
The host did a good job. It's got to be tough to find the right questions when your guest has such a vast plain of knowledge. Well done.
Thank you very much. I really appreciate that 🙏
What are you talking about? The host didn't catch any of Meyer's BS arguments, fallacies, or highly biased, flawed garbage (see below). This is exactly what happens when hosts are so dishonest/pandering or uneducated/ignorant about a subject they confuse a PhD degree in philosophy with a PhD in science, which actually studies the external universe, not the human mind.
3:20 "[science says] the universe had a beginning". No it doesn't. The big bang says there was an expansion event; what was "before" that is totally unknown, because there is no empirical data. But, if each one of the millions of past unknowns that science has resolved is any clue, this latest gap is most likely explained by more blind, mindless, purposeless natural/chemical/physical processes, not the biblical wet-dream that creationists conjure from the depths of their philosophical rectums.
Meyer gives the usual invalid religious argument that proposes, purely based on faith, a god of gaps to fill in the "before", as well as confusing a _knowledge boundary_ with a _natural boundary,_ beyond which is the "supernatural". How that works is totally unknown, unobserved, of the human mind and based totally on faith.
The host didn't notice, much less question any of Meyer's numerous basic logical fallacies (god of gaps, argument from ignorance, etc.), never mind false claims about science and science history.
"transcendent creator [i.e. mind without a brain]"
Science says all minds have [naturally-grown, naturally-operated, physical, chemical, material] brains, with no exceptions. The only way you can say science supports theism is to ignore vast amounts of empirical evidence.
Yeah the host did a hell of a job on that! Very thoughtful questions!
Whenever you try to counter atheism with what happens on the earth you are playing the game on atheism's home field.
@@robertdouglas8895 You mean science and natural processes, the things creationists hate so much because nature doesn't work like them; conscious, intelligent and purposeful (much like racists hate people not like them). But everyone needs to rely on nature daily to keep our roofs from collapsing, killing us, our computers, cars, bodies and minds working, as well as everyone we care about, alive.
This is because science has the only verifiable, reliable, knowledge about the universe we know exists, allows your existence, and creates all that we see.
Creationism has no demonstrated reliable "field" or basis. It's conjured from the depths of men's fallible, sinful, evil, racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynistic, masochistic, philosophical rectum, which produces equally contradictory and totally unreliable ideas, gods, and religions, as proven by history.
Creationists have no field to play on that has any effect other than a drug of the mind (created by a physical brain and blind, mindless chemical/physical processes); to make you feel good that those natural processes they despise so much aren't the only thing out there.
Thank you Freedom Pact for this fantastic interview. I am a fan of Dr. Myer and very much appreciate his work. God bless you both.
Thank you so much. I’m so glad you enjoyed the episode. Welcome to the Freedom Pact family 🙏
Here is absolute proof God does not exist. If God was the creator he would have made the OCEANS FRESH WATER. NOT SALT WATER !
Its always a pleasure to listen to Stephen speak and the host did a fantastic job conducting the interview 🏆
Thank you for the kind words! Glad you enjoyed 🙏
I was having a clear out and came across an old DVD from the 1990s called Intelligent Design, which I watched again the other night with much pleasure. Dr Stephen Meyer was on there and then this video came up on my UA-cam feed. How amazing ! Thank you for doing this video. I have long felt that Intelligent Design is worth considering and should be talked about much more widely.
Wow!! That’s so cool! I’m glad our interview showed up at the right time for you. Thank you so much for engaging with it!
Excellent interview.I connect with Dr.Meyers thought process and explanations so easily.This kind of knowledge and thought always expands and stimulates the mind.
We are on the earth but not of the earth. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
The temporary world is of the mind but it's the carnal mind not the Christ mind.
Dr. Meyer embodies this passage: "Walk in wisdom toward outsiders, making the best use of the time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person." Colossians 4:5-7
Dr. Myer. Heard you speak. It was good to hear you. At least we have someone who isn't an unbeliever, and you are an intelligent and learned person.
Big fan of Stephen Meyer. Great interview.
When I first ran across Dr. Meyer et al (2003 vid Unlocking the Mysteries of Life... $1.99 to rent) for at least a decade I had no idea he was a theist. His detailed arguments surrounding the cell and the design inference stood on their own. He and other scientists did admit that such evidence would have "metaphysical implications" but he never 'preached' along those lines.
Yet they don't have metaphysical implications. He is wrong on that point.
"His detailed arguments surrounding the cell and the design inference stood on their own. "
Only within a tiny clique of religious extremists, sheep and idiots. Not one "argument" has been published or cited in any scientific paper, because they have no scientific content. He writes for a conservative extremist propaganda think-tank, the DI, that was founded by a lawyer and is funded by Christian extremists. Look up the "wedge strategy".
*ID is a circular fallacy.* It says "X requires a mind", where X is complexity, fine-tuning, codes, information, etc., but fails to ask or acknowledge any of the science on where minds come from: natural, chemical, physical, unintelligent, unconscious, biological growth processes that need the parts ID says requires a mind. See embryology and growth/development sciences to see how blind, mindless processes created you. See neuroscience, physiology and biology for how the same allow you to think, feel and operate.
"I had no idea he was a theist."
Then you're a smooth-brain.
There are tons of stories where non-believers look for proof there is no God and they end up become believers.
Out of the fall precipitated from Adams free-will choice, "Cursed is the ground for your sake". God is the potter, we are the pots and life is much more than this short time given to each of us.
This is powerful, thank you Stephen
Thanks Lads. This has got me thinking.
Love to hear that! Thanks for watching.
His Speaking on Jordan Peterson s beliefs . Jordan Peterson s Dream about Jesus brings him to tears.
My take on Jordan Peterson is: Q. Do you believe in God? JP. That depends on what you mean by "do" and "you" and "believe" and "in" and "God"! He really shows the 'value' of philosophy!
I've listened to Dr Meyer quite a lot now off and on over the years, I can assure you, this interview is one of his best. I strongly urge everyone to download
this episode for safekeeping, I predict UA-cam and the internet will not have as much spiritual and deep thinking content in the future.
Dr. Meyer is a class act. Excellent presentation. Our very existence as a sentient being finely tuned within a finely tuned universe, ipse, leaves no other logical conclusion than a infinitely brilliant creator or originator which is beyond our finite imagination.
Stop sniffing your own and other philosophers' farts and go look up 'The Game of Life,' a simulation that practically proves that complexity and factories of molecules can arise out of a handful of simple rules that are naturalistic (self-evident). The things it produces look exactly like biological processes that happen in cells, and nobody 'designed' it. Did God create the AI like ChatGPT that can understand things by merely taking in images and assigning weights to trillions of parameters? No, and furthermore, if AI becomes better than us in every way, even in innovation and art, and capable of creating ecosystems far more stable than Earth's, we will have proven that something better than us is capable of being made by us, thus disproving your deduction.
I thought for the most part Dr Meyers's arguments were very well reasoned (although I don't agree with them), but if there were no other logical explanation for an intelligent person but to believe in an intelligent designer, we wouldn't be discussing it now, and I note that Dr Meyer himself does NOT make that claim.
@@RecliningFurniture I believe the sun will rise tomorrow because it has risen every day of my life, my observation compels me to believe that. Every day of my life I have observed purposefully ordered information always emanates from a mind, the code within all living things is way beyond human capabilities and compels me to believe in an intelligent creator. God solves all chicken and egg problems like which came first DNA or proteins, science cannot answer these questions but God creating all life fully formed with the abilities to replicate and environmentally adapt do, evolution requires a suspension of common sense observation that information always comes from an intelligent mind.
@@RecliningFurnitureWhy don't you agree? That is where your comments value lies.
Meyer is a disingenuous fool making arguments from ignorance, like every other god hustler.
The answer to the question of the problem of evil:
This is not a problem for those who believe that there is free will in this life and that life is a test.
It is also not a problem if you accept god is just a human invention.
@norbertjendruschj9121 right, makes all the evil go away, because suddenly those evil things aren't evil anymore! Praise be to the universe bro!
Information itself is an attribute of Intelligent Design-that in itself illuminates God as Creator of all that is.
/geo ex machina
I disagree. This is a point Dr Meyer makes and clearly believes. I don't happen to think he's right, but just parroting the point without further illumination doesn't seem to me to serve any useful purpose.
@@RecliningFurniture On what ground you disagree?
Saying that someone is parroting something without giving the argument and specifics for your claim, proves the exact opposite - your parroting what you were fed up through indoctrination camps, so called "education".
@@MultiSky7 Well my point had nothing to do with my disagreement with Dr Meyer, it was to do with just repeating what he said about information without further insight as though that was helpful to anyone reading the board comments. However, I have actually learned this little trick of thinking for myself, so I can appraise the strength of arguments that I've never heard before, which includes Dr Meyer's argument here. Information is not just things like computer code which trace back to intelligent origin. Information is how we interpret any phenomenon presented to us. One example of information is me saying to you 'the Earth goes round the Sun'. All the things we think we know about anything can be described as information of some sort, and some of these things will be true (eg 'The Earth goes round the Sun' ) whether we are aware of them and their truth or not. It's not the presence of information that bears any significance, it's the ability to interpret information in a meaningful way. If there was no intelligence that existed - including God - that was capable of interpreting information about the universe, that doesn't mean that the universe wouldn't exist, it would simply mean that the universe wouldn't exist in a meaningful way. (Conversely, if there were no intelligent beings that existed in the Universe, but a transcendent God existed who had created the universe, all the information about the universe would have meaning - to God.) We can't establish the existence of God just by saying the universe 'naturally' contains information, we have to demonstrate that the information has a particular meaning that can only correlate with the existence of God. In my view, that's impossible, because all the information we are capable of processing is of a limited physical type or dimension of some kind, and God - if He exists - is necessarily transcendent and formless and can't be meaningfully associated with any properties or information that we are capable of measuring or understanding.
No, you weren't listening properly.
It's evidence of a mind.
You can test this.
These comments for an example are evidences of minds
@@davidbell2547 I'm excited. I've never heard of an actual test for the mind of a transcendental being before. What is the test - I'd love to know (and the world needs to know)?
Love those exchanges thankyou 👍❤👋
I grew up in a strong Christian household. But my strength of a Creator became stronger later in life because of science. Not 1 person can say 100% there is no Creator and not 1 person can say 100% there is a Creator. But if you take in account all we know and see, it's more likely that we were Created.
What’s wrong with believing in intelligent design and parapsychology?
The problem of pain is an interesting question, BUT ATHEISTS DONT OFFER A HELPFUL ANSWER. The upshot of the atheist argument is that WE STILL SUFFER, but atheists tell us we just have to live with it. We suffer just as much, but atheists get to feel SMUG about it. But the doctrine of Christs atonement and resurrection and restoration, promiises to redeem us and allows us to overcome all the suffering of the natural world. Christ is God who has experienced ALL the suffering of humanity. Gods answer to the question of suffering is Look on my hands, feet and side pierced as I suffered with you. I know infinitely more about suffering than you, Stephen Fry. And I offer the only way to overcome the pain of life. You atheists offer no help.
Atheists don't worship a genocidal, sadistic monster in the sky. Therefore we have infinitely better morals that any slavering creatard.
There is no god.
We have practically no knowledge of the grand features of the natural world.
It seems that the biggest issue is that they have elevated science to God. Everything has to fall under that rubric.
Dr Steven God bless you.
Great interview.
Anyone that still believes that the universe is "finely tuned for life" (or anything else for that matter) is undermining their own credibility. It's the classic Anthropic Principle. Douglas Adam's put the equivalent argument from a puddle's perspective. For those that don't know the analogy, he said "“If you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!". That is effectively what the "finely tuned for life" argument is. It is self-evidently quite obvious that the very fact that things exist within the universe shows that the universe is one that those things can exist in. To flip this round and think that the universe has specifically been created to support human life is not only flawed but is also self-centred arrogant conceit of the highest order.
That is not the argument though. It is not looking around and saying wow this universe fits me so nicely. It is looking at the calculations and saying we should not exist but do. What do we conclude from that? It is like being put up against a firing range having them all fire and ending up with an outline of bullet holes in the shape of your body but not one piercing you (this is still more likely than the universe existing in a life producing state). You can conclude on the anthropic principle I needed to exist to observe this, that was lucky, or there was some meddling about.
@@android4754 Given that we actually do exist, on what basis are you arguing that "the calculations" say that "we should not exist"? That's clearly wrong. You are putting yourself into the position of the puddle admiring the finely-tuned shape of the hole that it is in.....rather than looking at the hole and thinking about what is possible within it.
We are on the earth but not of the earth. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
The temporary world is of the mind but it's the carnal mind not the Christ mind.
Great!
An entertaining and easy-to-understand conversation about the Genesis creation and evolution debate is the stage play Axis of Beginning. A quote from it says, “Intelligent design is based on the concept that DNA functions as a language, similar to arranging letters, images, or symbols to communicate information in precise ways. Comparable to computer codes, Morse codes, bar codes, tax codes, building codes, fire codes, zip codes, texts sent on our phones, or notes on small pieces of scrap paper left on the refrigerator to remind us to pick up the dry cleaning on our way home. No form of communication, sign language, spoken or written, can randomly change its characters within the sequence and continue to communicate meaningful information, like many essential thoughts working to form one great idea. God engineered every detail of creation, inventing the language of mathematics before He spoke."
I have written a book called the "Nation's Identiry Delusion" in my local language Amharic language in Ethiopia. My argument is "Nation collective Identity" doesn't exist. But Economical Standard of Living does with an individual bilogical identity in space and time does exist. Culture doesn't exist too.
The question of evil has a very simple answer when understood, we are in school here, one method of education is what we call karma or, what you sow you shall also reap, in that sense, we ourselves create so-called evil, which we then experience in order to refine our awareness-consciousness, there is a big picture here which does result in communion with God after sufficient education.
I was religious and atheist and I claim I have discovered the nature of God, and atheists have explained to me what is atheism, because I don't know yet, almost infinite times. Which means atheists have defended an idea without any arguments deceiving their innocent and vulnerable children always. I am a poet that writes prose to be understood better, all my work is poetry. Humanity are living a lie for obvious reasons for anyone interested in the truth. Would you understand and tell your innocent and vulnerable children what I said to you? Why? They would understand an injustice is being committed. The greatest knowledge of all time is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist.
This might be the weirdest and star-struck fan-boy interview I've ever seen. Meyer gets obliterated when challenged within the actual scientific community.
Dr Myer rules
So rock formations that look like something (ie, NH's Old Man of the Mountain) but were "carved" by natural processes over many, many years don't count.
All one needs to do is undertake a closer examination. From the opposite side it didn’t look anything like design. There is absolutely no comparison to the obvious design of Mt. Rushmore or biological protein creation.
The host needs to put his laptop onto something more solid so his camera doesn’t bounce as he moves. He isn’t the only one that does this.
A genuinely fascinating conversation. Respect to Freedom pact for getting these sort of guests on and exploring topics like this
It wasn't fascinating at all. Still no evidence for any of your versions of god.
@@Crashawsome I am not religious and in fact align myself as an atheist but that doesn't make the topic any less interesting
@@Mind_Over-Matter Can you give 2 examples of what you found so fascinating. Thanks.
You align yourself as an atheist? Weird phrasing, bud
@@Crashawsome the fact I stated I found it fascinating is enough for it to be true. It's an opinion that I can hold regardless of your opinion.
Weird phrasing or not it's still true so you may not want to jump to conclusions in future. Not everyone is like you and can't listen to anyone's opinions that don't align with your beliefs.
@@Mind_Over-Matter So, you can’t give any examples ?
I haven't seen the Stephen Fry clip but it sounds to me a repeat of what David Attenborough said some time ago.
And... to be honest, was repeatedly parroted by yours truly back in my atheist days.
So in other words, for many, this has become a conclusive statement to a discussion that hasn't even begun yet.
Curious what caused you to convert away from atheism.
11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.
12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.
Christopher Hitchens said the best evidence for A Creator is the fine tuning of the universe. I don't know the exact numbers but they are somewhere in the 10 to the power of 80.
10 to the power of 80, my arse!
@@matthewstokes1608 fine-tuning that must go into some of these values to yield a life-friendly universe:
Gravitational constant: 1 part in 10^34
Electromagnetic force versus force of gravity: 1 part in 10^37
Cosmological constant: 1 part in 10^120
Mass density of universe: 1 part in 10^59
Expansion rate of universe: 1 part in 10^55
Initial entropy: 1 part in 10^ (10^123)
The last item in the list - the initial entropy of the universe - shows an astounding degree of fine-tuning. What all this shares is an incredible, astronomically precise, purposeful care and planning that went into the crafting of the laws and constants of the universe, gesturing unmistakably to intelligent design. As Nobel laureate in physics Charles
@@matthewstokes1608 I'm no scientist at all. I can read and comprehend though. This type of numbers cannot just be random process. This is a bomb for Evolution Theory and more logic and reason for the Intelligent Designer. I call Him God.
@@richardpurser2935 i could short cut the science and hot air by affirming that there is a God because I am a Christian and I have proof of His grace and Presence every single day.
Ask a human scientist anywhere - without any seed - to make just one living crocus.
Ask a great poet and you will have a thing - a song of beauty in reverence to the Creator of the inimitable.
We need more artists and poets and dancers and lovers - and more ridicule of these boring, unimaginative,
satanic “scientists”.
They may think men such as me as “ignorant” - but that is nothing as to what I think of them.
@@richardpurser2935 No, no, no and a hundred times no. The "finely tuned" argument is completely the wrong way about. It comes up time and time again and I do find it bizarre that otherwise intelligent people like Dr Meyer also like it, but it's fallacious. Douglas Adams made the analogy of a puddle thinking that the hole it sat in was such a perfect fit for it that it the only logical explanation must be that the hole was specifically designed and "finely tuned" for it to fit into. Look up the Anthropic Principle.
Fry is a comedian, and it shows.
Before you ask this question first, you need to define what God is and then proceed, but aside from that I must say that Stephan Mayer is an extremely intelligent man that is true to himself in expressing the study of the origin of life telling things as it is. Hopefully one day he’ll get engaged in the ancient mystical study of Kabbalah which is much deeper then any physical scientific study, he’ll find out even more on deeper depth. But yes I consider him as the Isaac Newton of our time. And as regarding to your question about human suffering and evil in the world, I would say you need to invite someone like Tuvia singer or Simon Jacobson to answer these deep theological theosophical question, because with all the respect to Stephan Meyer, I do not agree with him on his answer regarding the New Testament, as it’s not considered to be the word of God, but rather a more dualistic approach that was merged with the Greek misinterpretation of the Hebrew Bible, which is considered to be the word of God. But aside from that as always, it’s great to listen to someone like Stephan Meyer.
The concept of the universe being fined tuned is absolutely false and turning the methodology backwards. Let me illustrate.
If a teacher drew a Cartesian coordinate on the board and added some points to it then asks students to derive the mathematical formula that will fit all the points, then the students will arrive at a function that would do that. Now supposedly, we now ask the students to alter any one of the coefficients, then the function will no longer pass through the points. Was the coefficient then fine tuned? No, the coefficients were derived from the data and converted into an equation. The equation now models the data perfectly because it was derived from the data. Could a universe have existed with different sets of coefficients? We don't know since we only have one universe to work with. So, fine tuning happens with the functions we created to model the universe and not the universe having been fine tuned to fit our equations.
Is the host related to Ringo? Sounds just like him.
Haha, I wish! Sadly not!
Great informative article. Richard Dawkins is God's secret Agent, more effective than a thousand sermons, opens his mouth, and millions rush home with renewed interest into their Holy Bibles
Mmmmmm!! Word Salad!!
I’m sorry that time in this interview was taken to discuss Jordan Peterson’s beliefs, etc. While Peterson’s journey has been quite interesting, and he has helped many people along the way, he is also a human with personal and psychological issues, whose opinion about religion, the Bible, etc., should really not be a part of this discussion. Just my opinion.
When I see Dr Peterson grappling with his religious beliefs, it is clear that he recognises the conflict between the rationality in almost everything he says and the irrationality of having religious beliefs. I've seen him attempt to rationalise the conflict by claiming that rational thought is somehow subordinate to some other form of thought and it's that other form of thought that he places the religious belief. Clearly this is just special pleading on his part but at least he is conscious of having to resolve the conflict. He will only be able to resolve the conflict when/if he drops the irrational religious beliefs. He quite possible won't drop his religious beliefs as I know that very hard for some people to do. Let's face it, religion has been around a long time and survives to this day even though our scientific understanding of the universe has solved the overwhelming majority of unknowns that "God did it" was the explanation for centuries ago.
@@davegaskell7680 Perhaps the issue of ‘intelligent design’, where Dr. Meyer argues that the exact mathematical nature of the universe could not be random, is an entirely different issue with respect to our religious beliefs….??
@@Inisfad The problem with Dr Meyer's argument in the context of the 'mathematics' of the universe is that it's basically just the "finely tuned" argument which is looking at things from the wrong end. It's quite clear that the mathematics of the universe isn't "random". The ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter of a circle, any circle, is pi and will be pi for every circle regardless of where you are. That's what makes a circle a circle. If a shape had a circumference that wasn't exactly 3.1415926.......times the length of its diameter then it wouldn't be a circle. For something to be a circle, the ratio needs to be exactly 3.1415926..... and the level of precision of this ratio number is incredible as it is an infinitely long number. Surely, for the ratio to be so precise then that's absolutely compelling evidence that the value of pi was incredibly "finely tuned" for circles to exist. Proof of God!! Of course I have my tongue in my cheek there but the logic of the "pi is finely tuned for circles" argument is the same as the "universe is finely tuned for life" argument. Pi is what it is - circles wouldn't be here if it wasn't that number. The universal constants are what they are - humans wouldn't be here if they weren't those numbers.
@@davegaskell7680 I’ve never heard Meyer using the example of pi to indicate intelligent design, but rather the coding of DNA, the mathematics of gravity that allows the universe to continue to expand. I can’t get my head around the genetic code being just randomly by accident…..???
@@Inisfad Well of course Meyer won't use the pi example because doing so would illustrate why his thinking is flawed. Pi is a variant of the "finely tuned" fallacious argument. The "mathematics of gravity" is another variant. The maths is just what it happens to be. If it was different then it would be a different universe. It's that straightforward. It's absolutely nothing to be impressed/surprised about when you look at it from this perspective. The DNA coding is a different point. It's evolution that explains the complexity of DNA and we know vast amounts about how evolution works and how the chemistry of DNA works too. It's only the mutations that are random. Evolution is "descent with modification acted upon by natural selection". The only random part of the process is the modifications (caused by DNA mutations). The descent part and the natural selection parts are absolutely not random.
I cant keep track of the number of scientist quoted by meyer,,, dawkins, hoyle,,, blah,, blah. Strickingly, no one mentions creationist when discussion evolution.
People that have never touched a Bible and have never bothered to try to understand God, do have strong opinions of Him, evil and the the world, and pretend to "know the truth". They judge things that only make sense looking from God's perspective and truth. The Bible clearly states that everything that God created was good, and that the entire world is cursed because of the sin (very long story short, separated from the Source of life and wellness). Also I noticed nobody wants to talk about the devil, like he doesn't exist, and truth is you have no real answers if you take the devil and the sin out of the equation.
Too bad Rogan couldn't listen this closely and respectfully.
To bad that to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt, you need a mechanism, there is no such thing as a mechanism for intelligent design
.
ua-cam.com/video/DlDAUsO6AVk/v-deo.html&si=DU7iVcjRDK2doy-6
Agree. Ticked me off how rude Joe Rogan was. He would attack/question something. Meyer would answer and point out the flaw in his reasoning or presuppositions, and THEN Joe Rogan would switch to different line of questioning without acknowledging that his scepticism was debunked. Meyer was too nice in my opinion.
Eh I would not be too upset. He has his presuppositions and personal interests and pet theories. None of those are not easily changed. Stephen has said in some other places that Joe told him afterward he thought the idea was very interesting and I think Joe is slowly starting to come around.
The man who founded the BB theory was a Belgian priest studying astrophysics. He admitted he was trying to reconcile his faith with astrophysics. In any case, the theory is a terrible one in the sense it’s been patched up with made up entities- dark matter, dark energy, and now that more data pours in, as it has for decades, the theory has again shown to be inconsistent with the “theory”
So the scramble is on to rescue the theory with variable time. Variable speed of light, whatever ad hoc explanation and new imagined variables are needed to keep the fairytale alive.
There has never been a more absurd theory or so much energy spent clinging to a theory that has more holes than a sieve
Georges Lemaitre DID NOT "admit he was trying to reconcile his faith with his primitive atom theory".
To the contrary, he kept his faith and science strictly apart. He even went to the Vatican to try and convince Pope Pius XII to not use his cosmological model as evidence for the biblical creation story.
At least you could get the history right instead of throwing out misrepresentations and falsehoods.
We have no concept of how much God is powerfully restraining evil in this world at this very time. Don't you dare accuse God of being mean and rotten. He gives you the very breath you inhale and your next heartbeat which you, Steven Frye, are ungrateful for and undeserving of.
Got Dr. Meyer's book. Well worth it. Brilliant mind.... and Christian. Seems Christians have no problems with science.
Review of Stephen Meyer's ludicrous *Signature in the Cell*
'Meyer's book is yet another in a long line of 'Intelligent Design' propaganda pieces. Intelligent design is not even an hypothesis, much less a scientific theory. I realize that the Discovery Institute has resources and money to get these books published, but after reading this I ask myself: Why do they bother? They don't have any science to offer.
Meyer suggests that intricacies of cells and of DNA could not possibly have evolved without an "intelligent designer," which everyone knows by now is just a code word for 'God.' The utter dishonesty of not just coming right out and saying: 'God did it' (which ultimately is their REAL argument) gives an idea of how much Meyer and his ilk can be trusted. ID is not science, no matter how you try to argue it, Meyer. Evolution by natural selection on the other hand explains the evolution of the cell, and all subsequent life beautifully - no deity necessary.
If you want to read some books discussing the real science of evolution, check out Richard Dawkins' 'The Greatest Show on Earth' Donald Prothero's 'Evolution What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters' Jerry Coyne's 'Why Evolution is True' and Neil Shubin's 'Your Inner Fish A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body'.
Meyer's book is still potentially useful though. For instance, if you have a table with one leg that's too short, you could even it out by putting 'Signature in the Cell' under the short leg. Problem solved, and the Discovery Institute will finally have done something useful for humanity.'
@@DocReasonableA review of Dawkins *The Greatest Show On Earth* Fascinating scientific discoveries and facts; filled to the brim with horrifyingly fallacious arguments. His hatred of people with differing points of view than him (especially creationists) was not only distracting, but led him to apply the worst logic I've ever heard anyone try to apply in a serious way: ad hominem, straw man, anecdotal, masked man, circular reasoning, equivocation, and pretty much every other fallacy you can think of. The field of evolutionary biology is diverse and filled with a vast number of differing points of view and Dawkins presented the evidence as if there was a single theory of evolution: his. Everyone who disagrees is not only wrong and stupid, but demented and wicked to the core (he really says this--countless times). He did a disservice to the field and to the thousands of evolutionary biologists doing real work collecting and analyzing data, compiling research, testing new and old theories. As a curious and eager to learn listener, I was not just disappointed, but angered by such a poor showing of logic, lack of objective scientific presentation, and just generally narrow view of the field. I expected better of him since he's so well known as an intellectual, but I cannot take him seriously after this book. So much for the spirit of science...
If you want an honest scientific presentation of contemporary evolutionary theories, this book is not for you.
If you want to rage against creationists and pretend Dawkins has finally come up with the one and only true and indisputable theory of evolution, have fun...
Outstanding conversation.
LMAO. For presuppositioner.
Regardless of what terminology you put on this (which seems to be the bulk of the comments here) the question remains: is mathematics random?
I would like to start by saying that I'm a big fan of Stephen and his work but I would also like to say that his confirmation bias lies in theism, as noted by his prolific use of the word. None of this information affirms a particular theology, it does however, affirm deism. ♾❤
Your comment affirms you can't recognize basic logical fallacies. *ID is a circular argument.* It says "X requires a mind", where X is complexity, fine-tuning, codes, information, etc., but fails to ask or acknowledge any of the science on where minds come from: natural, chemical, physical, unintelligent, unconscious, biological growth processes that need the parts ID says requires a mind. See embryology and growth/development sciences to see how blind, mindless processes created you. See neuroscience, physiology and biology for how the same allow you to think, feel and operate.
I'm still waiting for Meyer's "scientific evidence" for his god.
What's his hypothesis - which prediction exactly does it make - how did he test it - where are his test results and do they substantiate the hypothesis?
He can doubt whatever scientific/naturalistic explanation he wants, however, that doesn't refute them or make them obsolete. And most importantly, that does in no way advance the probability of his god claim.
Intellectually lazy.
His book clearly lays out the current “proofs” of the existence of God.
They are irrefutable.
If you really care about your question, buy it, read it.
It’s astonishing.
@@bradsmith9189 You really have no concept of what constitutes scientific evidence and the scientific method, eh?
But since you are adament about it, why don't you provide me with Meyer's best argument or evidence for the existence of god. I don't need the whole book, just his best one, the one that according to you is irrefutable.
Review of Stephen Meyer's ludicrous *Signature in the Cell*
'Meyer's book is yet another in a long line of 'Intelligent Design' propaganda pieces. Intelligent design is not even an hypothesis, much less a scientific theory. I realize that the Discovery Institute has resources and money to get these books published, but after reading this I ask myself: Why do they bother? They don't have any science to offer.
Meyer suggests that intricacies of cells and of DNA could not possibly have evolved without an "intelligent designer," which everyone knows by now is just a code word for 'God.' The utter dishonesty of not just coming right out and saying: 'God did it' (which ultimately is their REAL argument) gives an idea of how much Meyer and his ilk can be trusted. ID is not science, no matter how you try to argue it, Meyer. Evolution by natural selection on the other hand explains the evolution of the cell, and all subsequent life beautifully - no deity necessary.
If you want to read some books discussing the real science of evolution, check out Richard Dawkins' 'The Greatest Show on Earth' Donald Prothero's 'Evolution What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters' Jerry Coyne's 'Why Evolution is True' and Neil Shubin's 'Your Inner Fish A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body'.
Meyer's book is still potentially useful though. For instance, if you have a table with one leg that's too short, you could even it out by putting 'Signature in the Cell' under the short leg. Problem solved, and the Discovery Institute will finally have done something useful for humanity.' @@bradsmith9189
Very well put Dr, on the topic of natural bad. 🙏 for your works guys
sounds to me like he's substituting maybes for knowledge. why can't we just say 'we don't know' and move on trying to find out more about this reality we live in? i am not sure if the answer will ever be found, and this suits me just fine. my problem isn't with the idea of intelligent design, my problem is with the consequences - evil people using this controversial creator to inflict harm on the lambs who can't see they are being played into horrible deeds.
Another annoyingly clichéd defense of god, and one without much imagination. On the question of free will, for example, why would human beings be rendered mere puppets or machines (47:45) just because SOME options were taken away from us? We already have that in spades now! Examples: My conscience makes it impossible for me to choose cold blooded murder. Am I therefor a puppet? God allegedly has taken away our ability to chose to fly like a bird through the trees, to choose joy and happiness when being slowly tortured to death; to choose going back in time, or to the future, or walking on water. So if He added one more of thousands of categories of choice to this list: that of worst case suffering, why would we be anymore machine like than we already are? And since presumably there's free will in heaven, how is it the He could allow that to be compatible with the absence of evil there, but not here?
We need deeper thinkers to contemplate these issues.
Not scientific proof at all. Intelligent design argument does not help. God also needs a designer. You are simply replacing a mystery with another mystery. This is again circular argument.
Tell us Stephen, did you also use the Watchmakers analogy when you came up with Intelligent Design? And why not mention its history or similarity? Hmmmmmmm fishy 🐟
"GOD" He is the creator of all things that do exist and the author of all life in time unknown! He is beyond and before the things that do exist, because he is Truly the beginning and the ending the root, over creation, theologians, scientist and humanity...God's love presides over all... Peace Out!!!!
I would argue that the North Pole is the starting point not a no-starting point and an ending point. Just like God - the beginning and the end. This could also be argued that it is infinite, just as God is. Ever wonder why almost everything in the universe is either round or rotates around something?
"Ever wonder why almost everything in the universe is either round or rotates around something?"
The ground is called gravity.
singularities have been disproven
Great interview. The Bible has answers for everything. God is not the one causing suffering, satan and his demons are and corrupt humans of curse, Apocalypse 12:12; 1 john 5: 19;Romans 16:20. God does not make anybody suffers James 1:13. God will restore the earth,Apocalypse 11:18, Psalm 37: 10,11, 29; apocalypse 22:3,4, 5. Everybody pray for Gods kingdom to come, but what they don’t realize is that God’s kingdom is very near. We are living the last days of humans corrupt governments. He will put an end to it. Pay attention to one of the last prophecies that will happen, very soon governments are going to end with religion organizations. All FALSE religions are going to vanish , that will happen right before what the Bible called, The great tribulation. The Bible also says, THEY WILL KNOW I AM GOD, Ezekiel 38:23. Every one will know !
You sound a cheery soul.
Don't worry it's unlikely God or Satan exist.
It's absurd for anyone to believe that he doesn't exist, since his ability to believe that presupposes that he does exist.
If the universe contains its designer, is that designer a material object? If that designer is a material object, he, she, or it must be in a physical place. Does that suggest that another designer designed that place and designer in it? I worry that you may get a vicious infinite regress by assuming that the universe's designer is a material object.
You can't create energy/matter out of pure nothingness so the building blocks of the universe must have always existed. The universe has no creator because the universe itself is eternal.
@@suegirouard917 Do you believe the universe existed before the Big Bang? I've always thought it produced space-time and that the universe includes it.
Strictly, the universe can't be eternal because an eternal thing is timeless, unchanging, and unchangeable. But it needs a cause since it, the universe, can change. For example, it can age. So it's older than it was 10 minutes ago.
What do you mean by "eternal?" Strictly, an eternal object is timeless, unchanging, and unchangeable. But the universe changes. Do you mean that though the universe began to exist, it'll exist forever?
Each thing we know of that begins to exist has a cause. Tell me, my friend, did the Big Bang make the universe start to exist or did it merely fill it with stars, planets, and so forth? If it caused space-time to exist, what was there without space-time and without the Big Bang? Since nothing comes from nothing, I doubt that you'll say the universe came from nothing if the Big Bang produced it. If the Big Bang produced it, there had to be something without the Big Bang, i.e., the universe's possible existence.
Suppose the universe has always existed with or without the Big Bang. Then something still must sustain it. Something must make it continue to exist. It can't cause itself to begin to exist since the idea that anything can do that implies a self-contradiction.
Why is that. Whenever a cause makes something exist, the cause must be before the effect or exist along with it. But for an object to cause itself to begin to exist, the cause and the effect must be exactly the same. So in that case, the cause must exist and not exist at the same time.
Let's say the universe began to exist. Then it needed a cause. It also requires someone or something to sustain it. Sure, natural processes. But what sustains it and those processes?
Consider a refrigerator magnet. The magnet attaches it to the refrigerator door. For it to stay there, the magnet must keep working. The stick and the magnetic attraction have to coexist for the magnet to stay on the door. If God makes the universe and its natural processes last, they can't survive without him. If that's true, then if there were no God, there would be nothing at all.
We keep hearing about god-of-the-gaps arguments. Dawkins says that theists tell us that God did something when. they can't explain it. On the other hand, if God sustains everything and each part of it, science would be impossible without him. After all, science is something. If there were no God, there would be no fossil record gaps since there would be nothing at all.
@@williammcenaney1331 Energy can neither be created or destroyed so yes, the universe existed before the Big Bang, it just looked very different from what we see today. The universe is eternal, god is just a fictional creature imagined out of ignorance.
You are throwing in all sorts of assertions without any justification for them. You are asking us to accept your personal assumptions as binding on us. It is all in your head. There is no reason the facts of the dozen finely tuned constants can be invalidated because you do not accept the corollaries of those facts.
True
An entertaining and easy-to-understand read about creation and the Big Bang is the book Axis of Beginning.
The very first thing he said is wrong [1]: "the universe comes out of a set of preexisting set of equations". No, the equations were not preexisting, nor is the language of math, and all other languages known by humans. All equations, models, theories, laws, languages, codes and symbols known by humans were created/invented by humans _after_ observing patterns in empirical data (or they were borrowed from some other area of knowledge that is also based in empirical observation).
As all things in science, math was refined over many years, with many changes, and have many completely different forms that are unrecognizable as equivalent, except by physicists and mathematicians. Humans created the equations, the mathematical language and symbols of the equations. They were not observed. Nor is the "language" of mathematical physics, or the language of DNA observed. It was created by humans after observing patterns in empirical data that had no language and was only structured in space and time.
"the universe is depicted as a consequence of math"
Meyer is deeply confused and/or wants to confuse his audience. No honest physicist says the universe is scientifically demonstrated to be a consequence of math or a mind. *The universe is described and predicted by math.*
"math is conceptual; it exists in the mind"
Which is created by matter, energy, material/natural processes in the brain, which was grown naturally from parts that were no intelligent (neurons) or alive (atoms, electrons, etc.). Minds can't exist without a [naturally-grown] brain, cells, matter and energy., says science. All minds have [naturally-grown/operated] brains, cells and other parts, with no demonstrated or observable exceptions.
Meyer then makes a basic logical fallacy and confuses the _origin of math_ with the _origin of the universe._ Not only is this logically bogus, it's empirically bogus because there are many other things described by math but are proven to not be caused by a mind, namely the growth of brains that cause human intelligence (caused by natural/chemical/physical processes in embryology), the creation of weather (caused by chemistry, physics and other natural processes), the origin of the sun and stars (caused by physical processes), etc.
[1] And he knows it's wrong because he has a degree in the history of science, and his goal is to confuse his audience; pushing a creationist agenda. I.e. Meyer is a liar, just like James Tour and all the other discovery institute stooges.
The hilarious effects your silly, tired claims exert on intelligent minds cannot be underestimated.
@@SarahBaker-q9k
Minds made of brains, grown and operated 100% by natural processes, you mean. You owe your entire existence to blind, dumb, mindless, purposeless, material mechanisms that grew your brain creating your mind.
Show me a mind without a naturally-grown, naturally-operated brain (that relies on chemical/physical/natural/material parts and processes), and you'll be rich beyond avarice and world-famous.
Thus, intelligent design/creationism has *no basis in observable reality.* All minds require material, naturally-grown brains, with no exceptions.
DNA/codes/complexity requires a mind, you say? Minds require complex DNA codes to grow brains, science says, thus ID is a circular fallacy.
As usual, the theist has nothing of substance to add, because they totally misjudge and underestimate the power of the material universe, at their own peril.
Stephen....slowly read Col 1:24 (suffering)
Mathematical castles in the air, whereas positing an infinite, omnipresent, omniscient deity is ok?
Stephen has a paper jam in his shredder - just sayin’. Love Stephen. He makes too much sense for the atheists.
Your first question is rather odd for a number of reasons, one of which being you are implying that faith is a negative. Faith is all you incels have
Iv often found the people that throw around the term incel as an insult often are the ones most likely to be one. Pretty petty comment in reply to two people having a conversation 🤣
@Mind_Over-Matter yes, isn't it funny how easy to spot these kind of cynical, hostil people when your not one of them.
Incels? typical projection rofl
I hope I can encourage you and build you up in the faith! Woe to them that call Evil good and Good evil
Darwinian Evolutionary Religion “Survival of the Fittest” which is associated with “Lawlessness” men behaving badly! If you think that life is an accident, that Mother Nature made everything---chemicals came together and formed living cells billions of years ago in the ocean and these then evolved into all the species we find in the sea and then one day, a fish became an amphibian then reptile, then reptile to bird and mammal all the way up to humans from a common ancestor. This is purely religious in perspective and orientation. Evolutionary vanity is a form of godlessness which will one day all end in tears. Evolution has three major stumbling blocks: no evidence that living matter originated from non-living matter, no irreducible complexity of the single cell, living organisms are made up of trillions of cells-all parts of a living cell have to be present for it to function and lastly, “no transitional forms” either fossilized or living. Paleontologists’ have a continual headache because they have to imagine evolutionary concepts with fossil remains.
The bias and prejudice that created the theory of evolution was carried over from its grand architect Charles Darwin, who rejected the idea of God because of its profound implications. He stated and I quote: I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that men who do not believe and this would include my Father, brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished, and that is a damnable doctrine. Evolutionary thinking excuses moronic behaviour, men behaving badly. Darwin called the gospel of Jesus Christ a damnable heresy-the loving words of Jesus in the form of God’s commandments are a damnable doctrine? What did Jesus teach? God is a spirit which you cannot see and you are to love him in prayer with all of your heart, mind, soul and spirit and to love your neighbour as yourself and that includes your enemies. This is flawless doctrine, good and wholesome words of spirit and life, sound doctrine for those who have ears to hear with. Every day we are being watched by a profound power we cannot see which is invisible to the human eye, something beyond our complete understanding! God has come to prove us through his Son Jesus Christ.
Woe to them that call good evil. If Charles Darwin called the gospel of Jesus Christ a damnable doctrine, where does that leave the Origin of Species and Preservation of Favoured Races? Woe to them that call evil good!
How do I understand and take knowledge of God! Simply by the life of Jesus, who said he who has seen me hath seen the Father, I and the Father are one.
The birth of Jesus, yes! We celebrate this event at this time of year, but Jesus was actually conceived in the later part of December for him to be born Sept/ Oct the following year around the Jewish “Feast of Tabernacles.” God is love and every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God, he that loveth not, knoweth not God for God is love.
The Cosmic Big Bang Theory
Sir Fred Hoyle an astronomer at Cambridge University in the 1980’s said, I fear a sickly paw now overhangs the “Big Bang Theory.” Evolution teaches there was a Big Bang 18-20 billion years ago! [They keep revising their estimates.] All the matter in the universe was supposedly compressed into a very tiny dote probably no bigger than a period on this page. This matter was spinning faster and faster until it eventually exploded- the Big Bang. The matter that forms our universe should be evenly distributed throughout space but it is not, there is nothing uniform about it, we have areas in space where there are clusters of stars and then areas where there are great voids. We have some galaxies which spin clockwise and some which spin anti-clockwise, this is rather hard on the Big Bang theory, because all the matter should be evenly distributed and spinning in the same direction.
The Big Bang is dead!
According to the physical laws governing stellar velocities, stars should be travelling faster the nearer they are to the centre of their galaxies. Observational data proves that all stars in the outer parts of their galaxies are in fact travelling faster than those nearer the centre of their galaxies. This evidence is in direct conflict with the Big Bang theory and the prediction of these stellar velocity laws.
The Sun and our solar system
The sun is supposed to be part of the matter that resulted from the Big Bang 18-20 billion years ago and our planets and moons theoretically evolved from the sun. The sun spins on its own axis slower than the planets that go around it. The planets and moons of our solar system according to cosmic evolutionists were thrown off from the sun by centrifugal force. An experiment with a top will soon show that small particles thrown off it will lose speed much quicker than the top itself. If the Big Bang be scientifically true the sun should be spinning faster than the planets and moons which go around it but this is not the case.
Planets and moons rotate in different directions
How is it that Uranus and Venus rotate on their axis, in the direction opposite to that of the other six planets? If all eight evolved from the sun, it would be inconceivable that this should be so. How is it that eleven out of the thirty two moons of the planets of our solar system revolve in a direction opposite to that of the revolution of the planets around the sun? The eleven are: four out of Jupiter’s twelve; Phoebe, the outermost of Saturn’s nine moons; the five moons of Uranus; and Triton, the inner of Neptune’s two moons. Why is it that, whereas the sun rotates much slower than its planets, each satellite- owning planet [except the earth] rotates faster than its satellites?
All these evidences against The Big-Bang theory are purposely kept out of the public domain for good reasons; by atheists who pull rank in privileged positions of science.
The earth has such heavy elements
How did the earth come to have such a huge amount of heavy elements?
The earth contains iron, nickel, magnesium, gold, copper and silver etc, compared with the sun which is 99% hydrogen and helium? Professor Fred Hoyle said, “Material torn from the sun would not be suitable for the formation of the planets and moons as we know them.”
Stephen's arguments are not any more or less valid because he approaches them as a believer. That would be like saying a defense attorney's arguments are invalid because he believes his client is innocent.
They are less valid because he has zero evidence for his version of daddy.
Why do all you men need an invisible man to protect you? It’s all a bit weird
@@Crashawsome I would be willing to wager a sizeable amount of money that you would not score above 100 points on an IQ test .
How do you know he doesn't have any evidence for the existence of God? You haven't mentioned anything here to show he doesn't. Could you please give a few examples of what would count as evidence?
Your over simplification of who God is shows you really don't understand what Christianity teaches about who God is.
@@Crashawsome mark reid really gets around man
Anyone that says that God doesn’t exist is a fool
wow. ignorance is strong here !
"Mathematical castles in the air" The whole of science is laid out with these mathematical castles. The very foundation of modern science is built with these mathematics.
No need to search further just ask who you are
"Does God Exist?".....only in the minds of some.
It's called the design inference, and even children of atheists get it very early.
Yahweh was one of the sons of the Canaanite god El. The ancient polytheistic Hebrews eventually adopted him as their chief deity and later became monotheistic.
So, the answer is no.
A theist can not even distinguish fantasy from reality so how is that an intelligent design? You also can not create something out of absolute nothingness just as you can not destroy something that exists down to nothingness. This means the universe is eternal and can not possibly be created. The building blocks of the universe have to be eternal because you can't create something out of nothing.
There are hundreds of Gods so perhaps they got together in the ' Great Gods Forum' pre big bang and planned the whole thing for a bit of fun.
The Brain of God are multiple molecules of type and his physical body is infinity of space that without object .
Can an ant understand the mind of Einstein? This is how humans are trying to prove God's existence.
THERE IS NO BIBLE VERSE THAT SAYS THE LION WILL LAY DOWN WITH THE LAMB !!! Certainly a person as knowledgeable as you should know that !!! Come on !!!
It is certainly easier to say a god did it than to learn and understand how the universe naturally came to be. You could even lower it to an intelligence did it, not necessarily a godly intelligence. It is clear that an intelligence created a watch but it does nothing to explain how the watch came to be or the details of how it works. It doesn't even indicate a single intelligence created the watch, it could have been more than one. Some information could potentially be derived from the watch about the creator but most of the information will be unknown unless someone spoke to the watchmaker directly. The big problem however is we can walk along a beach and a watch on the beach would stand out as created from what would otherwise be considered natural formations. If we were in a junk yard with plenty of man made junk, the watch would not stand out since we are walking through a collection of intelligently created things. Theists want to make a case for everything being a creation but we already have an understanding of why certain natural formations or events occur that do not have an intelligence involved. There is nothing wrong with both nature and gods eternally existing, meaning just because we can have a natural explanation for everything doesn't necessarily negate any gods from existing. The problem is that right now gods are hidden (if any exist) and theists are looking for a need that only a god could fill. Even if a god actually exists, it is problematic not to have anything that points to that existence and even more problematic to have man made religions telling us the many things these gods want or don't want from humans.
Everything points towards god. Simulation theory and other theories, are just scientists realising they believe in god but wont say it because of pride and stubbornness.
Dr Meyers, honestly, the Bible clearly outlines that these things, the suffering of men and yes children, is a result of sin. Plain and simple. Don't blame God
Where does sin come in as part of the properties of the universe, I must have missed that bit? There's (rather unfortunately given that the rest of Dr Meyer's arguments at least sound cogent) a bit about rebellions of angelic beings - ie creatures completely unknown to science - but that's well outside the scope of the philosophy of science, isn't it?
@@RecliningFurnitureHi Reclining. Written in the program “On the Shoulders of Giants” speculated that consciousness may lie outside of physics FOREVER. I disagree with him, but if he is correct for some reason, then one may speculate that sin is a product of consciousness, and thus would fall outside the purview of physics (al a Witten).
Meyer's evasion of the "evil" question doesn't match his apparent rigour on scientific matters. An obvious double standard that betrays his inner motivation.
Steven Meyer is a nice guy, but I have to say his case for intelligent design is incredibly weak. It simply does not follow that because the Universe had a beginning that therefore it must have been brought into existence by an intelligent personal designer. What reason do we have to think such a thing? There just is no argument to support that claim.
I can see why at first it might appear to call out for that type of explanation, but when you analyze it more deeply, I think you'll discover that no creator is required. And it's not like this discovery of an absolute beginning is a new thing or stands as some kind of challenge to atheists. Steven Hawking discovered this decades ago, and his conclusion is the exact opposite of Meyer's! Hawking in fact asserts that this discovery gives us GREATER reason to be atheists than ever before.
So I'm sorry, but Meyer just does not have any good reason to give to think that God exists.
ᕦ༼ ~ •́ ₒ •̀ ~ ༽ᕤ If someone makes the Bible your disability you become the most interesting person in the world.
ᕙ(☉ਊ☉)ᕗ Natural selection is the character flaw in evil that is integrity is more important than life otherwise evolution is tragic circumstances with nothing intelligent happening. Almost everyone survive untill they reproduce. Nothing is getting selected except for the character flaw in evil. I found a replacement for the character flaw in evil that I liked but God makes me forget things that will cause me trouble.
Need to have a preexisting mind to explain the universe, ok, so matter, time and space are a creation of a creator.
"faith" you lost me there.
Using big words does not a god prove!!
I'm sorry...but "evidence" for God goes against the tenant of faith..believing in your heart (after weighing the evidence, sure..) and trusting in him. If anyone could 'prove' it, that would make it a thing of man. Just gotta go with it, blindly. Trust and believe.
Dr Meyer, I am a scientist too. I've studied many subjects and served as a nuclear electricians mate on an aircraft carrier. My schooling consisted of physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics. I put ALL my faith in science and mans knowledge until i was 31 and met someone who changed my life and how I felt, and I reexamined my life, HUMBLED myself to God, and began to not only believe, but trust. Now I'm more sure of it than the nose on my face. But I'll NEVER be able to prove it to anyone. I can preach, testify, and even be a shining example of a Christian for every breath the Lord allows me to take, but I can never give someone else FAITH. It is not mine to give.
It's true that it's called "faith" not "proof" for a reason, but that doesn't mean you should scoff at really smart people who are adding things up from science and history that reinforce a person's belief. You sound like a fool who is self-righteous with blind faith as if that is somehow more worthy of someone else's belief that isn't afraid to look at all the angles and ask questions.
@@gregkirk1842 There’s no scientific evidence god exists. Stop letting other men take advantage of you. Ask me a couple of questions about the existence of your god - let’s see if you’re afraid
@@Crashawsome You are an Internet troll . People do not care what you think
Free Will - it's the ultimate design tradeoff